nice. though valid but obsolete is not a thing… if it’s obsolete it’s invalid.
Also as the registrant of one of those new fancy TLDs, much like the owner of this website (email.wtf), their own email addresses will fail those stupid email validation checks that only believe in example@example.[com|net|org]
Shitty websites will fail “example@email.wtf”, guaranteed - despite it being 100% valid AND potentially live.
Source - I have a “.family” domain for my email server. Totally functional, but some shitty websites refuse to believe it.
Yeah I have a .engineering for my biz. I also registered mycompanyengineering.com to get through places that won’t take the new TLDs.
Usually banks.
12/21. It was highly entertaining though.
I scored 14/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
I actually died at the poop emoji one. Actually amazing awareness to test for that
Well… like Bill Clinton said, it depends on what the definition of “is” is.
Let us recite the email validator’s oath:
If it has something before the
, something between theand the., and something after the., it’s valid enough.The ultimate validation is to see if it gets sent.
12/21
are things that are considered out of current spec really “valid” though?
And is it really valid if my email provider doesn’t accept it? If it’s not universally accepted or standard, then it doesn’t matter if it’s technically valid.
The RFC is the standard.
If your email provider doesn’t accept email@email.wtf is it then invalid?
I lost it at the fork bomb. I mean I hit valid because there was no way it was on the and not valid, but there’s no way i’d have expected that. after that I just kept guessing the most stupid answer and did pretty well
I gave up when I got like 5 wrong. I’ve ran mail servers for decades, most of the invalid “valids” would get rejected by any mailservers I’ve administered.
And for a good reason.
I scored 18/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
15/21
I scored 16/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
Damn, and here I thought I had this locked down because I was salty that so many places struggle with
+in the email addy. But my god, there’s comments?I scored 13/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
I don’t care who the IRS sends, I am not validating emails with spaces on them.
You shouldn’t be validating emails yourself anyway. Use a library or check for only the
and then send an email confirmation.Use a library
Please, no. If someone wrote email address “validation” complex enough to warrant a library, then their code is almost certainly wrong.
or check for only the @ and then send an email confirmation.
Yes. Do that.
If your boss demands a more detailed check at input time, then make it display warnings, not errors, and continue to the confirmation sending step if the user chooses to ignore the warning.
Even if it’s a completely valid address and the domain exists, they still might’ve fat fingered the username part. Going to extreme lengths to validate email addresses is pointless, you still have to send an email to it anyway.
I seem to have annoyed an admin of an instance enough for them to subscribe my signup email to hundreds of dating profiles (presumably using a service that offers to harass someone for you)
Many of them aren’t good at validating email
One in ten has one email arrive, asking me to click a link to confirm
9 in ten have 5 emails before I notice them:
- Please click a link to confirm
- You received a wink
- You received a wink
- You received 3 chat requests
- You received a link
So it’s important to not send emails beyond the validate one to unvalidated addresses, to perfect your service annoying or harassing this parties
Also, use a disposable address for signing up to Lemmy
This is the way.
I don’t validate emails, I test them.
That’s your email? OK, what did we send it? if we couldn’t send to it or the user can’t read it there’s no reason to accept it.
OK, maybe I do some light validation first, but I don’t trust the email address just because it’s email-address-shaped.
I don’t validate emails, I test them.
Hooray! You get a gold star.
OK, maybe I do some light validation first,
I hope your “validation” does nothing more than show a warning that the user is allowed to ignore.
I have seen too many systems built by people who think they know what’s valid or not before and after the
sign*, and they are almost always dead wrong. In the worst cases, such systems accept an unusual-looking address and claim to send the expected verification message, but never actually send it. Of course, these systems won’t work for some people, and since none of their online docs or support staff know why, those people will be locked out of using the system and funneled into bottomless pit of misery if they try. Please don’t build broken garbage like this.*Fun fact: Not so terribly long ago, even the
sign didn’t have to be present. Some email addresses were bang paths. I’m not sure if any of these are still in use, but it wouldn’t shock me to learn that they are.What kind of “light validation”? I’m guessing a
.*@.*regex match.Almost correct. ^.+@.+$
Too hard to validate properly to be worth it. Even if it is technically valid that’s insufficient. It must also work, and the easiest way to test that is to use it and verify that the user got what we sent.
Would pass first validation, but fail when we try to send an email.
Successfully failed.
I see you accept lemmy handles.
if i can email them and the user gets it - fine by me
matches
